Are PCGS/ NGC graded "70" coins actually perfect?

So recently i bought a PCGS MS70 2018 Chinese silver Panda, and the coin doesn't look "perfect" to me. I don't know how to correctly describe these imperfections, so please bare with me. On the obverse of the Panda coin, the temple of heaven should be all matte finish, but there are what looks like tiny bright marks on them. The marks are also on the matte ring where the inscriptions are. These tiny marks look like results of impact with other coins, so maybe they happened during the minting process.

This is not the only "70" graded coin that i have noticed imperfections. I have a NGC 70 proof silver eagle that also has some obvious imperfections. Some "70" coins are better than others. I'm still new to coin collecting, so maybe i don't understand the grading rules and stuff, but shouldn't "70" coins be absolutely perfect? I understand that a lot of these bullion and modern commemorative coins are graded on a massive scale, and that the graders probably only spend a minimum of time on each coin, but how do they miss these obvious marks? Is that acceptable in the world of coin grading?

Anyway, i buy these "70" graded coins because they are easier to handle and sell than ungraded ones, and they retain their value pretty good, but "70" should be absolutely perfect, right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

@Arvin

This is just another example of "Buy the coin, not the slab!"

I've always believed that if you can't tell the difference between a 70 and a 69, then you should buy the 69 because it will save you a lot of money in the long run. Yes, the major grading services can, and do, make mistakes. The tiniest pin prick can make a difference, and they are sometimes overlooked.

I remember one occasion when I attended a local coin show, and one of the dealers was (loudly) complaining to others that NGC "dropped the ball" on a pair of 1995-W SAE's that he submitted for grading. This was at the time when one of these in PF70 was typically selling for about $9K, and NGC graded both of these PF69.

Since I had never before had the opportunity to examine one of these in-hand, I asked the dealer if I could look at them. So, I began examining them with my 10x loupe, tilting each coin this way and that way against the light. On one, I counted five tiny marks (pin pricks) in the cameo that glistened in the light and four similar marks on the second coin. When I brought this to the attention of the dealer, he just grumbled and glared at me like I didn't know what I was talking about.

It works both ways!

Chris

 

@Arvin Speaking only for myself, I do not believe there is any such thing as a "perfect" coin. If one looks hard enough they will find some sort of even the smallest imperfection. But TPG's do grade many coins on a massive scale for dealers and all of them have let some slip through that may be less than 70's. This 70 craze will find a way someday, to come back and bite people where it hurts. (financially) Best to buy these in hand from a dealer so you can better judge for yourself if you think it truly is a 70 rather than buying online and find out it was one that was overlooked and graded wrong. Unless it's a very low mintage item, best to buy the coin and not the holder. Very similar to buying coins listed as "slider" B.U. In most cases these are AU. But the terminology can confuse newer collectors. Also "premium" B.U. in which most cases can also be high AU.

 

Coins with a grade of 70 is a sales scam in my opinion.

 

“Perfect” as struck to the naked eye basically. Not absolutely in the sense that it’s the most perfect rendition of a design ever though some are that good.

 

I would love to go to a physical coin shop and look through the coins in person, but there's just no good coin shops near me, and i live in NYC. I've only been to a B&M coin shop once in my entire life (22 y/o), and it wasn't a very pleasant experience. So it's almost intimidating for me to go to another physical coin shop. Anyway, third party graders should add a new MS69+ grade to designate these not so perfect "70" coins.

 

How did you come to that opinion?

 

I've never been interested in coins that could possibly grade 70, so I basically have zero experience examining these types of coins. But in general, based on the strict definition of the word, "perfect" can only be realistically applied to things that have a finite upper limit (bowl a perfect game). When dealing with anything that occurs on a continuum (like condition), there is no such thing as "perfect". In this sense, perfect is like "infinity". We know what it means, try to get as close as we can, but can never realistically get there.

So assuming or insinuating that MS-70 means perfect is faulty to begin with. You could take the best struck coin in history and find some kind of flaw. In the extreme case, you could put it under an electron microscope and find atom-scale imperfections in the surface. It may be silly to even consider this type of thing, but it does negate the possibility of correctly calling any coin "perfect".

With this in mind, if the TPGs define 70 as perfect, then the highest possible grade that a coin could receive would be 69. As this is not the case, by default, their definition of 70 does not mean perfect. This means that they assign the grade of 70 based on the presence of some acceptable, minimal number of flaws. What that number or magnitude is? Who knows? This stuff is all subjective to some degree, so we can't expect much consistency.

 

I think most collectors are unable to tell the difference between 69s and 70s, that’s why they are skeptical. I couldn’t care less about modern coins, first strikes or coins graded MS/PF70, but I’d expect a 70 to be virtually flawless.

According to PCGS they should be: “A Mint State coin can range from one that is covered with marks (MS-60) to a flawless example (MS-70).”
https://www.pcgs.com/grades

 

I think a lot of the times it's just an uneducated snob opinion in all honesty. There's a big difference between the ones who say they can't tell or don't care which is perfectly fine and the ones who call it a scam

 

The imperfections i mentioned are clearly visible to the naked eye, so we're not talking about microscopic flaws, but i understand your point. No coin is perfect, but if there is some really visible marks to the naked eye, why is it a MS70 and not a MS69? I have seen much better coins that better deserve that MS70 grade.

 

Strike issues don't count, but it may have just been a miss. Would need pictures to see

 

Please do not let that bad experience linger. I took my son to a shop in Pittsfield, Ma. when he was 14 for his first visit. He had been doing his homework for 2 years prior. The owner was a complete jerk to him because he brought a list of the coins with the grades he wanted and the most up to date prices. He threw us both out. He did not go again for about two years but when he did he put the owner in his place right off the bat and he never did this to him again. Stay positive, know what you want and what you are willing to pay and ignore the attitude if there is one. There are good deals to be made these days. Baby boomers are liquidating their life long collections and certain coins that were hard to get are coming back around and coming down in price with this influx of coins. Never give up.

 

One note about 70-graded silver bullion. Newly struck silver bullion is prone to developing milk spots, sometimes years after being struck. I have a couple of raw Britannias that were perfect when I got them but now have a few milk spots.

 

This MS69 vs. MS70 debate largely exists for two reasons: grading bullion coins which, IMHO, is a generally brain dead activity, and grading coins minted day before yesterday, which makes about as much sense.

 

Excellent explanation GDJMSP. My scam concern are all these MS coins online with lots of buyers unaware of the potential overgrazing.

Even specifying that a coin is as “good as it can be” has a lot of gray matter in its description.

 

I've seen 69s that should have been 70.
I've seen 70s that should have been 69 or less.

I have seen a "perfect" Gold Buffalo and I've graded many.

My last PCGS submission. Here are a few I screened before sending them in. I think I went 22 of 27 that were sent in. A couple that I considered 69+ came back 70. I kept the best one of the PF/MS70s and sold the rest. And yes, some 70s look better than other 70s.

 

As I mentioned before, I've never been involved in the graded modern bullion coin market, so I had no experience from which to speak. But I think that there are some good points to be garnered from info in @Chiefbullsit 's post. As it was the coin discussed here, I looked up the PCGS population for the MS and PR versions of the HoF coin:

Proof

MS


Fully 82% of the proofs submitted came back as PRDC 70 , and 76% of the uncirculated coins came back as MS 70, and Chiefs submission success rate (22/27) was in the same ballpark (81%). So, assuming that people are only submitting coins that they think could possibly come back as 70s, it looks as though people can only agree on the 69-70 threshold at about an 80% clip. This isn't surprising. When you are dealing with extreme cases like this, the quantitative difference between the two can be imperceptibly small (If there is a quantitative difference at all).

I think that this also demonstrates why many feel that this whole MS 70 discussion is kind of a non-issue. When coins grade 70 at this rate, then I'd assume that a worthwhile submission has to be either 70 or bust. Do 69s even carry a premium over raw coins? And, do 70's carry a premium that even covers the cost of the bulk submissions? And if they do, that leaves the question of "Should they"?

The grading system employed by the TPGs was designed and intended for business strike coins that were created for circulation. It wasn't intended to characterize coins minted with special care, using specially prepared dies, and created under idealized conditions. The simple act of a coin popping out of a die and tumbling into a hopper with all of the other coins would impart imperfections that would negate the possibility of a 70 designation. I honestly believe that the originators of the grading system never actually intended for a grade of 70 to be used in practice, it was just supposed to represent the theoretical upper limit of the scale. When we then introduce expectations that it should be used for some coins, that's when we run into these blatant inconsistencies.

 

Those gold coins look great